Blog: Let Them Eat Meat

[Fallen_Horse]

I just found this blog. It's anti-vegan (mostly?), but it has quite well-thought articles. I don't agree with many of the author's conclusions, but it's refreshing (and disconcerting) to finally read some opinion pieces from an educated anti-vegan. For example, the most recent post discusses a challenge of anti-speciesism.

"This gets tricky for those philosophers who want to maintain a consistently anti-speciesist stance. That’s because it is prima facie speciesist for vegans to say that the starving or unhealthy should be allowed to kill and eat other animals, but not kill and eat other humans, since that suggests that other animals’ lives are worth less than ours. On the other hand, allowing the starving and unhealthy to kill and eat healthy humans if other animals abound is a tough sell.
So vegans who allow humans to eat flesh if their health or immediate survival depends on it, but want to maintain their claim to anti-speciesism, have two options. They can either argue that it’s not speciesist to allow the starving and unhealthy to always eat other animals before they would do the same to humans, or they can take the more consistent route and say that all sentient beings are equally fair game if you must eat sentient beings to survive or thrive."

http://letthemeatmeat.com/

Perhaps someone else can check out a few of the articles on the site and start up a good discussion here. Debate is always good, I think!

[Richard]

I might be inclined to read more if I have trouble sleeping and really need something to send me off.

Rattling on about pedantic things like what to do if you are starving to death is such a waste of time. Is the author starving to death?

But to address the ludicrous point they are hammering - yes, killing and eating a human is as acceptable as killing and eating another animal if you are starving. It is a last resort.

From a practical point of view, killing a human is a bad idea because first of all, it will be quite hard, and there may be other humans around who could take revenge on you later. Plus other humans can work together as a team in this unspecified survival situation. Killing an animal is easier, has far less risk associated with it, and you aren't losing a potential ally, so that's why I'd recommend killing the animals first.

But ethically, it is the same. Likewise, if you have a pet rabbit and you are starving, you are more likely to go after and kill another animal, rather than kill your pet. And you're more likely to kill another human stranger, than kill your own children etc.

But to rise above this entire line of debate, it's possible to have a level of speciesism, without having absolute speciesism. Likewise, if a person is sexist and says that women are stupid, that's different to someone being sexist and saying all women should be hooked up to milking machines and raped. So if someone is "speciesist" and is saying they will eat a rabbit before they eat their own kids, so be it. That doesn't mean that just because they are "speciesist" that they should then see animals as completely expendable even in non-survival situations. It's not black and white, and god I am sick of typing now, what a stupid, stupid, stupid article.

[Fallen_Horse]

....
But to rise above this entire line of debate, it's possible to have a level of speciesism, without having absolute speciesism. Likewise, if a person is sexist and says that women are stupid, that's different to someone being sexist and saying all women should be hooked up to milking machines and raped. So if someone is "speciesist" and is saying they will eat a rabbit before they eat their own kids, so be it. That doesn't mean that just because they are "speciesist" that they should then see animals as completely expendable even in non-survival situations.....

I like this point of view, thanks!

[Baby Hercules]

They can either argue that it’s not speciesist to allow the starving and unhealthy to always eat other animals before they would do the same to humans, or they can take the more consistent route and say that all sentient beings are equally fair game if you must eat sentient beings to survive or thrive."

This is a poignant and funny point I hadn't heard before. Thanks for posting.

Baby Herc

[stcalico]

I love my dog. If a fellow human was hungry and tried to hurt her, I would be capable of killing them. So I'm not a complete humanist.

But I do see actions on a sliding scale of morality and perhaps because of how I was raised/culture/ whatever, eating humans seems significantly more repulsive to me than eating animals. Tho I'd still place both those actions on the evil side of the scale.

I understand that desperate times can force people into doing things that are less than moral. But the Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs Western societies are hardly in a desperate situation. So, in order for a vegan to be able accept family and friends and remain at peace with society, I think it might (in these times) be necessary to accept and maintain some level of speciesm.. ie. some level of acceptance.

There is something called ' social identity theory ' in psychology which is one theory explaining how prejudice comes about: All people tend to elevate and show favoritism to the members of groups they are part of. This tendency appears at an early age. So will we ever live in a society that is devoid of prejudice?.. I personally doubt that very much.